Introduction
The introduction is massive (as the book itself is), 152 pages in length, and deals with the following introductory topics: (1) genre and integrity; (2) sources and affinities; (3) vocabulary, style, and compositional devices and patterns; (4) literary structure and outline; (5) the addresses and their situation; (6) aim, strategy, and theological concepts; (7) authorship; (8) place of composition; (9) date of composition; (10) external attestation and canonicity; (11) its text and transmission; and (12) the historical, social, and theological significance of 1 Peter.
Genre and Integrity. Elliott notes that the genre and integrity of 1 Pt “have been a focus of ongoing scholarly debate.” It is indeed a letter, as proven by (a) its personal epistolary prescript identifying the chief sender and intended recipient (1:1–2), (b) a letter body (1:3–5:11), and a personal epistolary postscript (5:12–14). These three are the “formal requisites of a genuine letter.” Notwithstanding, the form of 1 Pt’s “original components have the subject of sustained debate.” A number of theories have been proposed to explain the origins of 1 Pt. The homily theory, proposed by Adolf von Harnack, suggests that 1 Pt “consisted of an original homily (1:3–5:11), to which a later teacher or confessor (ca. 90 CE) added an epistolary framework (1:1–2; 5:12–14), dispatching the ensemble as a letter” (p. 7). An offshoot of this is the baptismal homily theory, proposed by W. Bornemann, which suggests that “1:3–5:11 constituted a baptismal homily based on Ps 33[34] originally given by Silvanus (ca. 90 CE) somewhere in Asia Minor. At the request of guests from the provinces mentioned in 1:1 who were present, Silvanus transcribed the homily and dedicated it to them (1:1b–2d), adding ‘Silvanus’ at the end (cf. 5:12) . . . Later an unknown redactor attributed the letter to Peter (1:1a) and also added the remainder of 5:12–14 to imply Petrine authorship” (p. 8). There is also the two-letter hypothesis, proposed by Moule, who argued that 1 Pt incorporates two letters, one of which (2:11–4:11) was originally addressed ‘to those not yet under actual persecution’ and the other (4:12–5:11) written ‘to those in the refining fire’.”
But Elliott is not impressed by these theories; he finds them “imaginative” rather than cogent. He argues, instead, that 1:1–2 and 5:12–14 (“epistolary framework”) “are thoroughly consistent lexically and thematically with the content of 1:3–5:11” (p. 9). “The consistency and coherence of its language, style, themes, arrangement, and line of argumentation indicate that 1 Peter from the outset was conceived, composed, and dispatched as an integral, genuine letter. This conclusion represents the position of the vast majority of recent research on 1 Peter” (p. 11).
Sources and Affinities. Firstly, 1 Pt “appears to contain at least citations of the OT (LXX) and from 10 to 12 allusions” (for the list, see pp. 13–16). Secondly, though he does not directly cite from them, Peter “is clearly familiar with concepts, terminology, traditions, and perspectives evident” in the OT Pseudepigrapha, the writings of Qumran, and the works of Philo and Josephus (pp. 18–19). Thirdly, Peter “appears acquainted with the language, rhetoric, diction, moral exhortation, and literary conventions of the Greco-Roman world” (p. 19). Fourthly, there are numerous correspondences between 1 Pt and many other NT writings. Elliott does not explain it in terms of literary dependency, as many scholars have argued, but he explains it in terms of a “wide stream of Christian oral tradition” upon which all NT authors drew in various ways. Elliott explains: “The evidence indicates independent and varied use of a flexible oral tradition involving not large catechetical patterns but smaller units of material: stable kerygmatic and creedal formulas, and baptismal-catechetical, liturgical, and parenetic formulations with specific semantic fields that have been employed in similar social situations” (pp. 29–30).
Vocabulary, Style, and Compositional Devices and Patterns. On pages 41 through 61, Elliott lists down 1 Pt’s vocabulary: a total of 1,675 words, a vocabulary of 547 terms, 61 of which occur nowhere else in the NT. “Several of these hapax legomena are employed to express fundamental emphases in the letter: the Christian community as ‘brotherhood’ (adelphotes . . .) and as covenantal ‘priestly community’ (hierateuma); ‘doing what is right’ (agathopoios) and ‘doing what is wrong’ (kakopoios)” (p. 61). On the stylistic elements of 1 Pt, see pp. 64–68. Elliott argues that 1 Pt has a clear structure, as is evident in the following: epistolary framework (1:1–2; 5:12–14), announcement of themes (e.g. election, etc.), inclusions, chiasms, transitions, commencement indicators, conclusion indicators, composition patterns, and link-words.
Literary Structure and Outline. 1 Pt. 1:1–2 and 5:12–14 form the epistolary framework of the epistle. Its body is 1:3–5:11, which opens with an affirmation of the collective identity and divinely conferred dignity of the believing community as the elect and holy household of God (1:3–2:10). The basic outline looks like this:
1:1–2 Epistolary Prescript
1:3–2:10 By God’s mercy believers are reborn an elect and holy people
2:11–12 Transition: Aliens and strangers are to maintain honorable conduct among the Gentiles to the glory of God
2:13–3:12 Honorable subordinate conduct in civil and domestic realms
3:13–4:6 Doing what is right in the face of hostility
4:7–11 Maintaining the solidarity of the household of God to the glory of God
4:12–5:11 Joy and solidarity in suffering, community unity, and trust in God
5:12–14 Epistolary Postscript
Addresses and their Situation. Chapter 1 verse 1 identifies the addressees as residing in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), and they were not regions but Roman provinces, which at about 17 CE had a population of approximately 8.5 million. Elliott remarks that in these areas, “Christianity made its headway mostly in villages and household communities” (p. 86). As to how Christianity began in these areas, Elliott thinks that the Pentecost pilgrims were instrumental in this. Acts 2:9 mentions pilgrims coming from Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia. As for Pontus, Aquila and probably his wife Priscilla were born there. “Along with the Pentecost pilgrims, they provide evidence of the early spread of the Jesus movement in the north of Asia Minor, independent of Pauline mission” (p. 87). As for Galatia, a Christian presence there in the mid-50s is clear from Paul’s letter to the Galatians. As for Cappadocia and Asia, we can point to the Pentecost pilgrims as being instrumental in the early evangelization of these areas. What was the profile of the population in areas Peter cited? Elliott explains: “The population of these provinces included natives (local aristocrats, administrators, and ordinary citizens), freed persons (former slaves who had been manumitted), a massive number of slaves (douloi, oiketai, servi), as well as a sizable number of resident aliens, strangers passing through, a small number of Roman officials and military veterans, and numerous Israelite communities that had been accorded special rights and privileges” (pp. 88–89). Elliott thinks that Bo Reicke’s estimate of 40,000 (before 67 CE) and 80,000 (after 100 CE) Christians in Asia Minor is quite a conservative figure, and that “it was the extensive dispersion of Israelites in Asia Minor that provided the starting point and communication network of the Christian mission there.” However, by the time of 1 Peter, “recruits from among the Gentiles probably had begun to outnumber their Israelite counterparts” (p. 89). The geographical location of the recipients has the following implications for the letter in general:
1. “The vast expanse of territory mentioned in 1:1 . . . presupposes an extensive expansion of the Christian mission following the activity of Paul and prior to the composition of 1 Peter.”
2. “The predominantly rural feature of the provinces other than Asia and the absence of any mention of cities point to the rural location of the letter’s addressees, who formed pockets of households dispersed across the landscape of Asia Minor.”
3. “The situation of the addressees . . . cannot be assumed to be that confronted by Christians in the cities and Hellenized province of Asia . . . The social tension between Christians and natives instead would have been typical of the animosity regularly directed by natives against displaced and foreign outsiders, with Rome playing no role at all.”
4. “The letter’s stress on the common identity and solidarity of the Christian brotherhood can be seen as an attempt to address the issue” of the heterogeneous communities of the recipients.
5. In contrast to Peter, “Paul did not campaign at all in Bithynia-Pontus or Cappadocia; he worked in and wrote to urban, not rural, communities; and his earlier mission of the 50s reached only a partial amount of the territory circumscribed by 1 Pet. 1:1” (p. 90).
By way of inferences, we can identify the social profile of the “implied” (“presupposed or construed by the author”) readers (pp. 94–97).
1. “The addressees are presumed to be ‘strangers’ and ‘resident aliens’ in the areas they inhabit (1:1, 17; 2:11) . . . Their political, legal, and social situation was a precarious one . . . similar to . . . homeless strangers, who lacked, or were deprived of, local citizenship and its privileges.” The Greek term paroikoi, “by-dwellers”, distinguished from xenoi, “complete strangers,” refers to an “institutionalized class ranked socially below the citizen population and above freed-persons, slaves, and complete strangers . . . Their different languages, clothing, customs, religious traditions, and foreign roots set these aliens apart and exposed them to suspicion and hostility on the part of the native population and to charges of wrongdoing and conduct . . . As resident aliens, the addressees of 1 Peter were exposed to such charges (2:11–12, 15; 3:16; 4:12–14, 15).
2. Peter “reckons also with the existence of specific groups, for whom he has specific instructions: free persons (2:13–17); domestic slaves (2:18–20) . . . ; wives with non-believing husbands (3:1–6); husbands with believing wives (3:7); community elders/leaders (5:1–5a); and recent converts (5:5b).”
3. “All of the addressees are presumed to be believers in Jesus Christ, called and elected by God, sanctified by the divine Spirit, redeemed by Jesus Christ (1:1, 3–5, 10–12, 14–16, 17–21, 22–25; 2:2–3, 4a, 5, 7, 9–10; etc.), who entered the community through conversion and baptism (3:21; cf. 1:3, 22–23; 2:2), were committed to obedience to God’s will (1:2; 2:15; 3:17; 4:2, 19), and anticipated the final revelation of Jesus Christ (1:7, 13; 4:13; 5:1).
4. “They were presumed not to be eyewitnesses of Jesus (1:8) but to have been evangelized through missionaries other than the senders of the letter (1:12, 25).”
5. “An ethnically mixed audience is also presumed, comprising of both Israelite and pagan origin.”
6. Peter “further presupposed that there were tenets of faith and Christian baptismal instruction, Christian values and norms, and formulas of worship that were known to and shared by senders and recipients and that illustrated and reinforced the bonds that united them . . .”
7. The recipients’ respect for St. Peter’s authority and teaching is also presupposed (1:1; 5:1, 12)
What was the precarious situation of the recipients as Peter perceived, described, and diagnosed it? Elliott explains: “The manner in which Christian suffering is mentioned, described, and addressed in this letter points not to organized Roman persecution as its cause but to local tensions deriving from the social, cultural, and religious differences demarcating believers from the neighbors” (p. 103). Organized and official Roman persecution of Christians was initiated by Decius (249–251 CE). “Prior to this time, anti-Christian actions against individuals or groups were sporadic, generally mob-incited, locally restricted, and unsystematic in nature,” initiated on the whole “by natives who perceived members of the messianic movement as threatening local peace and order” (p. 98).
Aims, Strategy, and Theological Concepts. Elliott thinks that 5:2 comes closest to summarizing the content and aim of 1 Peter: “to bear full witness to the grace of God in which his addressees stand and to encourage them to stand fast in this grace” (p. 103). Generally, 1 Peter “serves as a direct group-to-group communication assuring the beleaguered addressees of the concern and support of their brothers and sisters abroad.” More specifically, 1 Peter’s message “is designed (1) to enhance the readers’ awareness of their collective dignity and privileged status with God over against their low status in society and to strengthen their resolve to dissociate from former, pre-conversion modes of conduct, allegiance, and alliance; (2) to encourage social cohesion and solidarity within the Asia Minor movement so that it will present a united front against abuse from outsiders; and (3) to provide a persuasive rationale for the courageous endurance of suffering and for continued commitment to God, Jesus Christ, and one another in the face of suffering that threatens to undermine hope, trust, and fidelity” (p. 105). The theological concepts that permeate the letter include God, Christ and salvation, eschatology, and ecclesiology and ethics (pp. 109–118).
Authorship. Who wrote 1 Peter? The traditional answer is that the apostle Peter himself wrote this letter. Another answer is the “secretary hypothesis,” proposing that Peter employed Silvanus as his amanuensis. Still another answer is the view that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter “ascribed to the Apostle Peter and produced not by Silvanus but either by someone remaining anonymous or by some group…” (p. 124). Finally, there is the view that 1 Peter “emerged from a Petrine group in Rome” and Elliott argues extensively in favor of this theory (pp. 127–130). Elliott says, what is more important is that the letter was ascribed to Peter, though it was not actually written by Peter. He explains: “As a letter from the Petrine group in Rome of which Silvanus and Mark were members, it was ascribed to Peter the Apostle because the group responsible for its composition knew that they were expressing not primarily their own ideas but rather the perspectives and teaching of their foremost leader, the Apostle Peter” (p. 130).
Place of Composition. Proposals include Antioch in Syria, Asia Minor, and Rome. Of course, in keeping with his view that 1 Peter was written by a Petrine group in Rome, Elliott logically favors Rome as the place of composition. Among other reasons, he cites the explicit mention of “Babylon” in 5:13, a term “used figuratively for Rome, and he points to the attestation by Papias and Clement of Alexandria.”
Date of Composition. Consistent with his view that 1 Peter was not written by Peter himself but by a Petrine group in Rome, Elliott argues for the dating of this epistle in the period between 73 and 92 CE (pp. 134–138).
External Attestation and Canonicity. Irenaeus was the first to directly refer to 1 Peter. All attestations prior to his were all of the nature of allusions. These allusions can be found in 1 Clement, 2 Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Polycarp’s Letter of the Philippians, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Papias of Hierapolis, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Letter to Diognetus, 2 Clement, Apologetic, Apocryphal and other writings, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, and Eusebius of Caesarea.
Canonicity. Elliott quoted Selwyn saying that 1 Peter’s canonicity was “widespread, early, and clear. From the second century onward it formed an undisputed part of the NT canon and eventually was grouped among the seven so-called ‘Catholic Epistles’” (p. 148).
The Text of 1 Peter and Its Transmission. Elliott says, “The Greek text of 1 Peter is relatively well preserved. It is contained in three papyri, sixteen uncials from the fourth to tenth centuries, more than 550 minuscules of the ninth to sixteenth centuries, and a number of passages in the lectionaries” (p. 149).
The Historical, Social, and Theological Significance of 1 Peter. This epistle is significant for its message: “In the face of public slander, insult, unjust accusation of wrongdoing, and the suffering resulting from such treatment by non-believing outsiders, the Jesus movement was called upon to demonstrate its honor, distinctive holiness, and moral integrity and faithfully to maintain its commitment to God, Jesus Christ, and one another, with the hope of gaining even erstwhile detractors to its cause . . . The paradox of Christianity’s forming an honored household of God is matched by the paradox of its joy in suffering and its fervent hope despite oppression. Publicly shamed by outsiders, believers are honored by God and, in solidarity with their suffering Lord, will also be vindicated on the day of judgment” (pp. 150–151). This epistle is also significant for the following reasons: (1) using diverse range of Israelite, Hellenistic, Palestinian Christian, and Diaspora Christian traditions; (2) one of the most sustained reflections on innocent suffering in the entire NT; (3) its Servant of God Christology is one of the most developed and moving expressions of this theme in the early church; and (4) it presents one of the most extensive discourses in the NT on the engagement of the Christian community with non-Christian society.
Translation, Notes, and Comments
EPISTOLARY SCRIPT (1:1–2)
Verses 1:1–2 is a customary epistolary formula, indicating the name of (a) the sender, (b) the addressees, and (c) the salutation. Though v. 1 mentions the name Peter, Elliott does not think that the apostle wrote this epistle. He restates his position: “1 Peter . . . is a letter from one branch of the worldwide Christian brotherhood (5:9) residing in Rome to another branch of the brotherhood residing in parts of Asia Minor.” It is written in the Peter’s apostolic authority (p. 308). Elliott argues that Mark and Silvanus belonged to this Petrine group (p. 311), Silvanus being the letter’s courier (p. 317). Elliott translates elect not as a substantive but as an adjective modifying strangers. Hence, “elect strangers,” a paradoxical expression “articulating on the one hand the vulnerable condition and lowly status of the brotherhood in society and on the other hand its elevated and elite status with God” (p. 315).
I. BY GOD’S MERCY BELIEVERS ARE REBORN AN ELECT AND HOLY PEOPLE (1:3–2:10)
I.A. Praise to God for the Saving Benefits of His Mercy (1:3–12)
This subsection opens with “a note of blessing, praising God for the gifts of His fatherly mercy (vv 3–5), affirming joy in the midst of suffering (vv 6–9), and stressing the privileged status of the addressees as recipients of the good news of salvation (vv 10–12)” (p. 351). Elliott observes that 1:3–12 “has a fourfold epistolary, didactic, parenetic, and legitimating function . . . It sets a doxological tone for the letter as a whole and as a prologue introduces several of its major themes. It reminds the vulnerable Christian strangers in Asia Minor of the blessings from God that have transformed them and marked them as the reborn children of God, both religiously and socially, while simultaneously stressing that saving grace involves the movement from present suffering to future glory” (p. 353).
I.B. The Hope and Holy Conduct of the Children of God (1:13–21)
The particle dio in v13 connects this section to the previous one. The emphasis on “hope” in v13b and v21c “forms an inclusion marking the opening and closing of the unit” (p. 355). There are two internal sub-units unified by the holiness theme: the believers’ holiness modeled after the holiness of God who called them (vv 14–16) and Christ’s holiness through whom the believers’ redemption was secured (vv 17–21b). Elliott identifies four related strands of thought in this section: (1) setting hope firmly on the grace coming with the revelation of Jesus Christ; (2) the obedience that children of God owe the Father from whom they have been reborn; (3) the holiness of the believers, which should be consistent with God’s holiness; and (4) the reverent conduct, nonconformist behavior, and hope appropriate for strangers of the Diaspora during the time of their alien residence (p. 355).
What is the hope that Peter speaks of in v13b? Elliott calls it “Christian hope” because its foundation and focus is “the divine grace that is brought or borne to believers with the revelation of Jesus Christ” (pp. 356–7). Specifically, its basis is “the experience of grace conferred with the revelation of Jesus Christ” and its hope “would be its final confirmation” when Jesus comes again (p. 357).
In v15, Peter declares that God’s holiness is “the basis and model for the holy behavior of God’s obedient children” (p. 360). Holiness is “a paramount quality uniting believers with God and Jesus Christ and distinguishing them from non-believers” (p. 361). It calls for conformity with God and “non-conformity to Gentile values and to all forms of behavior contrary to the will of God.” Peter focuses on “good and honorable conduct,” anastophe in Greek, denoting human “way of life.” It consists in “doing what is right.”
Crucial to 1 Peter is the term paroikia in v17, which Elliott translates “residence as aliens” or “alien residence.” It “highlights the precarious condition of the believers as aliens and ‘outsiders’ in Asia Minor society” and reminisces “the political and social situation of Israel’s ancestors living as displaced aliens in the host country of Egypt prior to their exodus” (p. 366). Elliott rejects the tendency to spiritualize this term and derive from it a cosmological contrast between residence “on earth” and an eventual home “in heaven.” Instead, it refers to the actual social situation of the recipients in which condition they “are exposed . . . to all the various forms of suspicion, hostility, and suffering that strangers living in a foreign land always had to endure . . . They are nevertheless exhorted not to conform to prevailing social patterns of behavior but to be holy as God is holy…” (p. 368).
Elliott sees in vv 18–19 a “portrayal of the redemption accomplished through Christ that evokes memory of the historic deliverance of Israel from Egypt, the sacrificial system through which atonement between God and Israel was achieved, and the poignant depiction of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. The readers are hereby provided with a rationale for their holy and distinctive conduct, which is based on both the holiness of God and the holiness of Christ” (p. 375).
I.C. Familial Love and Rebirth through the Word of the Gospel (1:22–25)
This section has in view “the readers’ behavior within the family of the reborn.” Verse 22b insists on the “the constancy of their love for one another as brothers and sisters” (p. 382). Elliott says that Jesus radically altered the traditional Greco-Roman notion of kin group and family and thus of brotherly love. Whereas in the mainstream culture kinship by blood determined who was brother and who was sister—hence kinship determines community—in Jesus’ parlance, “community determines kinship.” That is, “kinship is redefined as the affiliation of those carrying out God’s will.” Jesus “established a new and more inclusive notion of family based, not on blood or Torah observance, but on fidelity to God’s will and loyalty to God’s Messiah.” The Christian community is God’s household and believers regard one another as brothers and sisters (p. 385). Verses 24–25 teach that the permanence of God’s Word “provides motivation for the necessary endurance of Christian brotherly love” (p. 391). Peter’s quote of Isaiah is explained by the social circumstances of the Jews that time—they were aliens and strangers in Babylon.
I.D. Renunciation of Evil; Nourishment and Growth of the Reborn through the Word (2:1–3)
In v1, Peter calls for “the renunciation of all types of evil and hypocrisy that undermine the internal solidarity of the community and inhibit the unhypocritical practice of brotherly and sisterly love” (p. 395). The list includes evil, guile, hypocrisy, envying, and slandering. These traits “were widespread in a society marked by factional rivalries and intense social competition and conflict” (p. 398). The phrase “newborn babies” in v2 may be regarded as an expression “appropriate to the condition of converts who have just been received into the Church by baptism.” But Elliott suggests that the main focus “is not the recentness of the believers’ new birth but the fact that they . . . should hunger for the milk of the word” (p. 399). Elliott interprets this “milk of the word” as “the proclamation of the good news concerning Jesus as Lord.” This feeding on God’s Word will result in growth (Elliott marks the progression: rebirth, feeding, and growth), which “pertains not simply to that of individual believers but to their maturation and integration within the family of the reborn” (pp. 401–2). In v3, Peter quotes Ps 33:9, which points to “the believers’ initial experience of rebirth through the hearing of the good news concerning Jesus Christ. The experience of having initially tasted the goodness of the Lord is the basis for their continuing to crave this word as a source of ongoing sustenance” (p. 404).
I.E. Election and Rejection: Christ, Believers, Non-believers—the Consolidation and Honor of the Household of God (2:4–10)
This section “reiterates and ties together several foregoing motifs: (1) rebirth as a process of regeneration, growth, and familial incorporation; (2) the divine word of the good news as ‘seed’ and medium of rebirth; (3) the holy union with God and Jesus Christ; (4) the distinction between believers and non-believers, who reject Jesus as Lord; (5) the identification with Jesus Christ, both in his rejection by humans and in his divine election; and (6) behavior indicative of the believers’ divine calling and election in the midst of their alien residence” (p. 407).
In vv 9–10 multiple honorary epithets of ancient Israel, all corporate in nature, are applied to the communal identity of the believers: “elect stock,” “royal residence,” “priestly community,” “holy people,” “people for God’s possession,” and “God’s people.” These epithets “identify the believers as members of the covenant community of the end time and sharers in the honor, dignity, and status of God’s special people” (p. 444). The stress on the believers’ election and holiness marks them as the heirs of Israel and recipients of the expectations of the prophets. The community of believers is called to the task of declaring publicly the praises and excellencies of him who called them from darkness to light.
On pp. 449–455, Elliott further exposits 1 Pet. 2:5, 9 and expounds whether this text is indeed foundational for the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of believers. He notes several outstanding points. First, 1 Pet. 2:4–10’s focus is on election, not priesthood. It is “an affirmation of the elect and holy character of the believing community, which, through faith, is one with the elect and holy Christ” (p. 451). Second, the Petrine author, in composing this text, made use of the covenant formula of LXX Exod. 19:6, which included the terms basileion and hierateuma “to explicate the elect and holy character of the covenantal people of God.” Third, the term hierateuma (“elect stock,” “holy people,” “people of God”) “is a collective noun designating the believing community as a whole . . . It does not mean ‘priests’ or ‘priesthood’, but ‘priestly community.’ The term cannot apply to the believers as individuals, but only to the believing community as community,” as is true of the substantive basileion. Fourth, in both 1 Peter and Exod. 19, “priestly community” “expresses the holiness of the covenant community and the immediacy of its relation to God.” Finally, 2:4–10 does no mention the believers’ baptism or ordination or consecration to priesthood, nor does it refer to “the priesthood of Christ or any suggestion that believers share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their constituting a ‘priestly community’” (p. 452).
Elliott’s conclusion is: (1) “Attention to the specific content of all these specific writings [see his pp. 452–3] makes it clear that no single NT composition presents a notion of a priesthood of all believers as constructed by theologians in later time . . . The Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was a product of the ecclesiastical polemics of the sixteenth century and an attempt to affirm the priestly character of all the baptized over against the ‘papist’ position that the status and responsibilities of priesthood were reserved exclusively to ordained clergy” (p. 453). Since 1 Pet. 2:4–10 “depicts not the rights and privileges of individuals but the electedness and holiness of the communal people of God,” then “this doctrine and the related doctrine of a Christian ministry of the laity will have to seek support” in other texts.
Elliott clarifies that he does not question “the clear biblical foundation for a theology of the ministry of all the faithful . . . That all baptized Christians are called to serve and minister to one another is a thought abundantly documented in the NT” and in 1 Pet. 4:8–11. Elliott also does not challenge “efforts to formulate a theology of priesthood (in the sense of universal ministry) consistent with the entire NT” (p. 454). He simply wants to say that 1 Pet. 2:4–10 is not the direct text for that purpose.
II. TRANSITION: AS ALIENS AND STRANGERS, MAINTAIN HONORABLE CONDUCT AMONG THE GENTILES TO THE GLORY OF GOD (2:11–12)
Elliott argues that this section constitutes “a major structural transition related to and yet distinguished from both preceding and following contexts” (see pp. 474–6). Its focus is the honorable behavior of God’s household in the larger society. Verse 11 and 12 provide two principles that are to inform their interaction with non-believers. First, they are to avoid the “deadly cravings” (“insatiable craving,” “selfish yearning,” “self-indulgence,” which include but is not restricted to sexual desire). “Believers are urged no to allow themselves to be molded by the ‘cravings of your former ignorance,’ that is, by dispositions and actions that governed their life prior to their conversion and from which they have been ransomed by Jesus Christ” (p. 463). Second, “believers are to behave honorably among the non-believers in the prospect that their honorable conduct will put the lie to Gentile accusations of Christian wrongdoing and even lead these slanderers to glorify God” (p. 472).
Peter addresses his readers as paroikoi (“resident aliens”) and parepidemoi (“visiting strangers”). Xenos is the Greek term for the general idea of being a stranger, which involves the idea of being located elsewhere than in the place of their birth and hence from the perspective of the natives are “others,” “who lack roots in language, customs, culture, and political-social allegiances of the people among whom they dwell.” Paroikoi and parepidemoi are subsets of these strangers. “They are persons displaced from their own homes and places of birth and belonging, and live as ‘by-dwellers’ among homes and countries of others, with whom they share no kinship or cultural ties.” Parepidemoi is most often used “of the temporary visitor, the transient stranger who, as traveler passing through, has no intention or opportunity to establish permanent residence” (p. 458). On the other hand, paroikos is used of the stranger “who resides longer or permanently in a place different from that of his or her origin and hence is a resident alien” (p. 459).
Elliott exposes two common misconceptions in relation to these terms. First, many take these terms to imply “strangerhood ‘on (an evil) earth’ in contrast to a ‘homeland in heaven”—thereby introducing and imposing a cosmological dualism alien to the thought of this letter. Second, some further assume that the addressees “had only become strangers as a consequence of their affiliation with the messianic movement.” Elliott’s own position is this: “We must allow for the possibility that at least some of the believers occupied the stratum of strangers and resident aliens prior to their conversion and that it was this precarious condition that led them to seek a place of acceptance and belonging in the messianic movement in the first place . . . This hypothesis would take into account (1) the large number of actual strangers and resident aliens within this mobile, missionary movement; (2) the attraction to this movement of others who were also actual strangers and aliens where they resided; and (3) the eventual global designation of the entire movement as a community of strangers and resident aliens in a secondary and extended metaphorical sense, distinguished from and harassed by their non-believing neighbors” (pp. 461–2).
III. HONORABLE SUBORDINATE CONDUCT IN CIVIL AND DOMESTIC REALMS (2:13–3:12)
The general ethical principle expressed in 2:11–12 is now applied to specific social areas of behavior, beginning with 2:13. Elliott observes that subordination is a common theme in 2:13–17, 2:18–25 and 3:1–6.
III.A. Honorable Subordinate Conduct in the Civil Realm (2:13–17)
The topic of this section is the honorable conduct of free persons in the civil sphere. Thought it is connected to the previous section, it is also a self-contained unit for the following reasons: (1) it introduces a new verb, “be subordinate” (hypotasso) in v13, to explicate honorable behavior; (2) it introduces a defined area of behavior—“conduct in the civil sphere”; and (3) it addresses a specific group of persons—“free persons” (v16) (p. 485).
The hypotasso and its form hypotage when used in ethical contexts “denote recognition of and respect for authority and order, which involve submission, deference to, subjection to, and obedience to superiors, namely God and humans in positions of recognized authority” (p. 487). Peter calls for “conduct in accord with one’s (assumed) allotted position and role in society and the showing of proper deference . . . All such instances of subordinate and humble behavior are forms of conduct that ultimately demonstrate mindfulness of God (2:19; 3:16), reverence for God (2:17; 3:2, 14, 16), and obedience to God’s will (1:2, etc.). In 2:21–24 the subordination of Jesus Christ himself to God’s will as God’s servant provides the paramount model for Christian subordination” (p. 488).
Elliott says that Peter “explicates no theory of state,” and that this Petrine text differs from Paul’s in Rom. 13 in that it only describes the function of political authorities, which is to punish wrongdoers and reward those who do right. Like other NT authors, Peter “accepts as a given the authority of emperor and governors and, later, the institution of slavery, the subordinate relationship of wives to their husbands, and of younger persons to their elders” (p. 502). That being said, Peter’s focus here is not on the validity of these social structures and authorities as such but on the Christians’ conduct in relation to these social structures.
Three theories have been put forward to elucidate on the “schematized form and subject matter of the ethical contexts in which the verb Three theories have been put forward to elucidate on the “schematized form and subject matter of the ethical contexts in which the verb hypotasso and the theme of subordination appear in the NT. One such theory is called the “Subordination Code,” which suggests that “instruction on subordination formed part of a sixfold pattern of traditional baptismal catechesis that was variously adopted and adapted by NT authors” (p. 503). Another such theory is called “Household Code,” so called for its assumption of the “existence and common use of a ‘household code’ or Haustafel.” Elliott weighs in, “This term is found nowhere in the ancient literature but was adopted from Martin Luther’s label for a list of duties, set out in his Small Catechism, that Christians should consider in their self-examination prior to attendance at the Eucharist” (pp. 504–5). The third is the Theory of Indebtedness to a Flexible “Household Management” (Oikonomia) Tradition. Research has shown that there existed “a long-standing Greco-Roman tradition of instruction concerning appropriate behavior relevant to the two major domains of ancient society: the civil sphere (polis) and the related domestic sphere (oikos)” which influenced early Christian instruction on domestic relations and riles (p. 505). “By the Roman period this combined instruction on civil (politeia) and domestic (oikonomia) conduct had become a common-place of traditional ethical reflection . . . It is the varied use of this flexible ‘household management tradition’ that best accounts for the similarities and differences among the Greco-Roman, Israelite, and Christian materials” (p. 506).
III.B. Honorable Subordinate Conduct in the Domestic Realm: Household Slaves and the Servant of God (2:18–25)
Structurally, vv 18 to 25 consist of two distinct units: vv 18–20 is “an exhortation to domestic servants/slaves that presents a general principle of conduct (v 18) supported by an initial rationale (vv 19–20) comprising mention of approval from God and an adaptation of a saying attributed to Jesus in Luke 6:27–36, and vv 21–25 is a “further motivation for the exhortation of v 18, in which early Christian tradition concerning the vicarious suffering of Christ is expanded through language drawn from the fourth servant song of Isaiah” chapter 52 (p. 512).
Elliott notes that though this text applies first to servants/slaves, it does apply “ultimately to the entire suffering community.” Elliott emphasizes Peter’s independent from Pauline thought, fusing biblical themes and motifs, kerygmatic formulas, and extensive use of Isa 52–53. In particular, Elliott notes the following: (1) Peter does share the conventional notion that “slaves are irrational slaves.” He assumes “their rational competence, moral responsibility, and Christian commitment.” (2) “He addresses them as oiketai rather than douloi, thereby stressing the household (oikos) sphere of their activity and significance.” (3) “The slaves of 1 Peter share . . . the social and psychological predicament of the Christian community as a whole”—“their uprootedness from home, lack of kin-group support, and exposure to the whims and abuse of their superiors,” etc. (4) Peter’s placement of this instruction diverges from Pauline sequence, where slaves are addressed after wives-husbands and children-parents, giving it prominence on domestic relations (p. 540). (5) Peter’s point is not only that servants/slaves should subordinate to their masters, but also that they should do right (v20) and endure unjust suffering (vv 19–20). (6) “This double motivation involves the merging of diverse traditions: vv 19–20 allude to a saying of Jesus as preserved in Luke 6:32–34; v 21 echoes a tradition on discipleship; vv 21–24 entail formulations concerning the vicarious suffering of Christ, rooted and preserved in the eucharist tradition…” (7) Peter adds a lengthy Christological justification (v 21–25). (8) “Verses 21–25 incorporate an extensive amount of material drawn from the fourth servant song in Isaiah” . . . used “to substantiate instruction of household servants/slaves in particular, who also suffer despite their innocence and doing what is right” (p. 541). Elliott reiterates that Peter does not censure but instead assumes the continuation and legitimacy of the institution of slavery, though certainly “slavery and enslavement are no longer tolerated but instead are outlawed” in modern society (p. 543).
On pages 543 to 550, Elliott explains the tradition and redaction in 1 Pet. 2:21–25, in which he retracts his former position expression in his 1985 volume which attributed this Petrine text to a use of a hymnic or creedal source. Rather, these verses “manifest an original and creative blending of tradition, concepts, and motifs that is marked by an extensive use of material from Isa 52–53 to present Christ as an innocent suffering servant of God and model for suffering believers” (p. 550).
III.C. Honorable Conduct in the Domestic Realm: Subordinate Wives (3:1–6) and Respectful Husbands (3:7)
This section consists of combined instruction to Christian wives (vv 1–6) and husbands (v 7), which has four main sub-units: (1) vv 1–2, “wifely subordination and holy conduct and its winsome effect on non-believing husbands”; (1) vv 3–4, “wifely subordination and conduct illustrated by adornment, with stress on internal character and divine approval”; (3) vv 5–6, “present moral adornment and subordination illustrated by the conduct of the holy wives of old and especially Sarah”; and (4) v 7, “husbands’ honoring their wives as co-heirs of divine grace” (p. 551).
Elliott argues that “1 Peter 3:1–7 represents [a] combination of conventional views and Christian motivation specifically designed for the situation in which the community found itself as a beleaguered sect in Asia Minor” (p. 552). The specific, decidedly, and, hence, unparalleled, motivation which Peter gives for wives’ subordination to their husbands consists of four reasons: (1) “subordination and holy conduct could win unbelieving husbands to the faith (v 1cde); (2) it has God’s approval (v 4c); (3) it is consistent with the conduct of Sarah and the holy matriarchs of Israel (vv 5–6); (4) Christian wives, whether or not married to believing husbands, are heirs of the grace of life (v 7e)”; finally (5) the husband-wife’s marital relations have a bearing on prayer and their relation to God (v 7) (pp. 556–7, 583). The nature of this subordination is: “reverent and chaste conduct (v 2), a gentle and tranquil spirit (v 4b), emulation of the subordinate attitude of the holy matriarchs (vv 5–6), and doing what is right without feeling intimated (v 6c)” (p. 557).
Elliott sees four discernible reasons why wives receive the lion’s share of attention in 1 Peter 3:1–6. First, “they represent the more vulnerable partner in the marital relationship, and this vulnerability is particularly acute for those who are married to non-believing husbands.” Second, “the conduct and character encouraged of wives (respect for order, chasteness, virtuous comportment, gentleness, doing what is right without fear), like that of domestic slaves, also is of a piece with the conduct and character required of all believers.” Third, “the Christian goal of wifely behavior likewise illustrates the behavior of all believers: leading a holy way of life that will win even non-believers to the faith.” Finally, “their relation to God (their holiness and reverence for God, their tranquil inner spirit precious in God’s sight, their status as joint heirs of the grace of life) and their solidarity with Israel of old similarly illustrate the relationship to God and ancient Israel typical of the entire household of God. Thus, Christian wives, like the domestic slaves, are presented in the letter as poignant paradigms and moral examples for all of the believers addressed” (p. 583).
On pp. 585–599, Elliott has appended an excursus on the “hermeneutical problem and contextualizing gender constructs” with respect to the interpretation of 1 Peter 3:1–7. He states that this text, along with other biblical texts, presumes “the inferiority of woman and urge their subordination” to men, and this presents “the modern-day reader with an acute challenge involving both biblical interpretation and the use of these texts as moral guidelines today” (p. 585). In other words: “How do readers, who are removed from the texts they read in terms of time, place, and social-cultural circumstances, continue to derive meaning and motivation from this literature?”
There are three distinct approaches to this issue. The first view “insists on ignoring any chasms separating contemporary Christians from the biblical past and regarding the Bible as an obsolete, timeless expression of the Word of God and as prescriptive for Christians of every time and place. As such, its statements on women are seen as unconditioned descriptions of the female nature and as infallible directives concerning the place, role, and behavior of women today.” The second view, opposed to the first, says that “the Bible is a sleeping dog that should be allowed to lie,” never to be awakened, because it does reflect “a social and cultural world totally alien to our own and an understanding of gender, sexual nature, processes of reproduction, and all of their accompanying values and attitudes as incompatible with modern, scientifically-established knowledge.” Both of these are inadequate, for the first one denies the historical nature of the biblical writings as expressions of human authors inevitably constrained by their own time, place, social location, and culture” (p. 587) while the second one rejects the Bible as “hopelessly out of date, irrelevant to, and at odds with the sensitivities and changed social and legal structures of modern society.” A third, correct approach is necessary, one that seriously takes the historical, cultural, social contexts of the Bible, and discerns from here on what God is saying to the contemporary church. Applying these basic principles, Elliott writes: “conventional notions concerning the physical and social inferiority of women, their subordination to the authority and tutelage of males, as well as conservative attitudes toward female attire and comportment prevailed in formative Christianity” (p. 595, emphasis added). Further, “the Petrine author is a child of his times, reflecting, like his Christian contemporaries, the views and expectations of a patriarchal society,” assuming “females to be inferior and requires that they be subordinate to their husbands for the sake of domestic harmony.” But Peter, like Paul, “appeals to distinctively Christian reasons in support of his conventional exhortation: “reverence for God and concern for God’s approval (3:2, 4), the conversion of non-believers (3:1), the solidarity of Christian wives with the holy matriarchs of old (3:5, 6), and the status of Christian wives as co-heirs with their Christian husbands of the grace of life (3:7)” (p. 585, cf. 596).
III.D. Honorable Conduct in Civil and Domestic Realms: Concluding Exhortation to All (3:8–12)
This subsection brings to a close the exhortation concerning public and domestic conduct begun in 2:13. The whole local Christian community is addressed here, with v 8 focusing on the relations of the members of that community with one another and v 9 focusing on the community’s relations to outsiders who abuse and insult. In vv 10–12, Peter’s point of quoting Ps 33:13–17a is the doing what is right in contrast to doing what wrong.
Elliott explains: “The addressees are urged to cultivate the characteristics that foster internal cohesion and solidarity of the community: oneness of mind, tenderhearted compassion, emotional commitment to brothers and sisters of the faith, and humility (v 8). Toward hostile outsiders, on the other hand, mistreatment and insult are not to be paid back in kind, but instead believers are to bless their detractors.” Elliott notes that in this respect Peter deviates from the prevailing conventions and norms “that prescribed retaliation, vengeance, vendettas, and blood feuds for violations of personal or group honor” (p. 616).
IV. DOING WHAT IS RIGHT IN THE FACE OF HOSTILITY (3:13–4:6)
IV.A. Doing What is Right Despite Suffering (3:13–17)
Peter “now relates upright behavior to the issue of handling abuse from outsiders and the suffering that it brings” (p. 618). 1 Pet. 3:13–17, together with 18–22 and 4:1–6, unfolds the idea of doing what is right according to God’s will despite the abuse and suffering that it may entail.
In v 14, we learn that suffering for doing what is right is not a cause for shame but a badge of divine honor. Elliott talks of “makarism,” “an ascription of honor or a declaration of the honored status of a person or group. Makarisms “are a prominent biblical as well as extra-biblical figure of speech,” declaring “the honor of the elect people . . ., of the pious who fear the Lord and observe His ways or of those who trust in God.” There are two makarisms in 1 Peter, one in 3:14, “If you should suffer for doing what is right, how honored you are!”; and the other in 4:14, “If you are reproached because of Christ, how honored you are!” (p. 623).
The situation envisioned in vv 15ff, Elliott says, “involves not formal accusations or legal proceedings before Roman officials or local magistrates, but the general climate of popular hostility to the Christians as strangers, curiosity about their hope, and the malicious intent of outsiders to demean, discredit, and disparage them” (p. 637). In any way, believers should be ready “to respond to any who seek an explanation of their remarkable hope” (p. 636).
IV.B. Christ, the Suffering Righteous One: His Suffering, Death, and Resurrection as the Basis of Believers’ Salvation and Vindication (3:18–22)
1 Peter 3:18–22 “provides a Christological support for the entirety of 3:13–17,” a “Christological basis for the foregoing call for doing what is right despite suffering” (p. 639). Elliott notes that “the experience of Christ recounted here involves not only his innocent and vicarious suffering and death (v 18ab, d) but also the divine vindication of his suffering and death: namely, his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation at God’s right hand (v 18c)” (p. 638). “Because of the divine vindication of the suffering Christ, suffering believers can anticipate their own vindication if they persevere in doing what is right. His own resurrection and ascension to heaven assures the believers that he can lead them to God as well (v 18c).”
Elliott regards verses 19–21 as a “notorious crux interpretum,” citing 13 reasons that make interpreting this passage very difficult: (1) the Greek text of en hoi kai; (2) the antecedent or sense of en hoi; (3) the place of the pause between v 19 and v 20; (4) the event to which Christ’s “having gone” refers, including its occasion, time, and direction; (5) the identity of the disobedient spirits in prison and the occasion and nature of their disobedience; (6) the location and nature of this prison; (7) the content of Christ’s announcement to them, the time of this announcement, and the relation between 3:19 and 4:6; (8) the nature of the relation between the Flood and baptism, and between Noah’s family and present believers; (9) the sense of the explanation of baptism; (10) the syntactic and semantic coherence of vv 19–21 and their relation to vv 18 and 22; (11) the possible sources underlying this material; (12) the relation of vv 18–22 as a whole to both the foregoing (3:13–17) and following (4:1–6) units; and (3) the theological and rhetorical function of this passage in the broader context of the letter (p. 648).
Elliott argues that (1) the antecedent of en hoi in v 19 is not the foregoing term “spirit” but “the foregoing statement of v 18 as a whole and especially its last words referring to Christ’s resurrection.” Hence (2) he concludes that vv 19–22 “describe events (Christ’s announcement to the disobedient spirits, the saving of Noah and family, and the saving of believers) associated with Christ’s resurrection and ascension to heaven.” Elliott denies that vv 19–22 ever refer to Christ’s “descent” to the underworld but, instead, to Christ’s “ascent” to the right hand of the Father, as indicated by the words “having gone” in vv 19 and 22. In the course of His ascent, Christ “passes through inferior heavenly regions where the disobedient spirits were imprisoned, in accord with the cosmology of 1 Enoch, Israelite, and Christian tradition and cosmology.” Elliott (3) thinks that the disobedient spirits “are the fallen angels or spirit-powers of Noah’s time who were disobedient to God’s will before the Flood and therefore imprisoned until the final judgment” (p. 690). On pp. 654–656, Elliott builds the case for he calls Flood tradition, and he states that “the biblical account of angelic rebellion, their instigation of evil on earth, the punishment of the Flood, and the salvation of Noah and his family were the focus of intense interest in the Second Temple Period” and that 1 Pet. 3:19–20 “represents an early Christian allusion to and variation of this tradition,” as shown by the terminological and thematic affinities (p. 655). (4) Christ’s announcement to these disobedient spirits consists not in the proclamation of the good news of their salvation but “word of their condemnation and subordination to the power of the exalted Christ” (p. 690). (5) “In 3:21, antitypon announces a correspondence between the saving of Noah and his family and the baptismal saving of the believing addressees through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (6) “In the explanation given of baptism, eperotema denoes the pledge to God of a sound and constant mindfulness of God’s will.” (7).
On pp. 693–705, Elliott appendages an explanation on the tradition and redaction in 1 Pet. 3:18–22. He affirms that in vv 18 and 22, Peter has made use of Christian tradition. Specifically, “verse 18ab, echoing traditional formulations of Christ’s passion, links vv 18–22 with 3:13–17 as its Christological substantiation” while v 22, “embodying kerygmatic formulas declaring Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and presence with God, provides the basis for the statement in v 18c that he leads believers as well to God” (p. 697). Elliott also affirms that in vv 19–20, Peter has made use of some Israelite tradition, particularly the Noachic Flood and (Enochic) tradition (see his explanation on pp. 697–702).
On pp. 706–710, Elliott also appendages an excursus on the doctrine of Christ’s descent into hell, 1 Pet. 3:19, and whether these two are related. The doctrine of Christ’s descensus ad inferna teaches that in the period after Christ’s death on the cross and before His resurrection, Christ in spirit went down to hell to preach the gospel to the human spirits there in order for them to have the chance for repentance and conversion. This doctrine “underwent various stages of development and diverse modes of theological elaboration in the first four centuries” (p. 708). Elliott’s survey shows that “it was Clemet of Alexandria at the end of the second century who first introduced 1 Pet 3:19–20 into this developing speculation about Christ’s activity in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.” Clement believed that all persons, including the dead, all have the chances of “hearing the gospel, of repenting, and of being saved.” The dead got this chance when Jesus in spirit went to them preaching the gospel. Origen took Clement’s speculation way forward for building on it his universalist position, that ultimately all will be saved. In the 4th century, Christ’s descent into hell began to appear in creedal formulations, including the Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian Creed.
Elliott shows, however, that 1 Pet. 3:19 in its context refers to Christ’s ascension following his resurrection. The doctrine of Christ’s descent into hell is totally alien to this text. The “disobedient spirits in prison” are not deceased humans but “the angelic spirits whose disobedience led to the destruction through the Flood, and Christ’s announcement entails a confirmation of their condemnation and confinement” (p. 709).
IV.C. Obedience to God’s Will Distinguishing Suffering Believers from Sinful Outsiders; God’s Condemnation of Sinners and Vindication of the Faithful (4:1–6)
In this passage, once again, Peter goes back to the theme of suffering and its moral implications. In v 1a Christ’s suffering is being used as a model for the suffering of believers, and the emphasis lies now on the reprieve from sinning that suffering obviously enables. Innocent suffering, like the suffering of Christ (v 1ab), “disciplines the physical body and facilitates ceasing from sinning” (p. 741). Elliott speaks of the “disciplining effect of suffering . . . [Peter] is not claiming that the suffering of a righteous person atones for sin or that it purifies from sin, but rather that suffering, especially innocent suffering, disciplines the physical body by which sinning is carried out and thereby trains one to cease from sinning” (p. 717).
Verses 2 and 3 contain the vice list that Christians must abandon. The list includes immoderate conduct, selfish cravings, drunkenness, reveling, carousing, and lawless idolatries.
Elliott notes the difficulty of interpreting v 6 for the following problems: (1) the subject and content of the verb proclaim; (2) the identity of the “dead”; (3) the relation of 4:6 to 3:19, and (4) the sense of the antithesis in 6b. Elliott argues that the verbs ekeryxen (3:9) and euaggelisthe (4:6) are not intrinsically synonymous and hence unrelated to each other; they different voices (active and passive, respectively) and different subjects (Christ and an unnamed subject, respectively). These two verbs have different indirect objects as well (“spirits” and “dead”, respectively). Elliott explains: “The ‘spirits’ referred to in 3:19 are not deceased humans but the angelic spirits of primordial time whose disobedience and rebellion against God led to the evil destroyed in the Noachic flood. The term ‘dead’ in 4:6 denotes all of the human deceased” (p. 730). What is more, “there is also no structural correspondence between 3:19 and 4:6. Finally, “whereas 3:19–20 speaks of an announcement of condemnation to the disobedient angelic spirits, 4:6 sounds a note of hope by contrasting a judgment of the dead according to human standards to their living according to God’s standard” (pp. 730–1).
V. MAINTAINING THE SOLIDARITY OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD TO THE GLORY OF GOD (4:7–11)
This section focuses on the believers’ behavior in the context of (within) the Christian community, as opposed to outside the community in (2:11–4:6). Elliott notes that the exhortations here in terms of structure, combination of motifs, and rationale are uniquely Petrine, though they share similarities with Pauline exhortations.
Peter opens in v 7 with the reminder that “the end of all things is at hand.” “End” here refers to the “eschatological end of the ages,” not the end of individual persons (p. 744). The imminence of the end is “rooted Christologically in the conviction of the Messiah’s first appearance, inaugurating the end time, and of the imminence of his final resurrection, bringing this age to a close.” Peter’s “view of the end appears to involve not an eradication of the world but a termination of the current order of life and a transition to a new and glorious future” (p. 747).
Peter urges certain forms of “reciprocal conduct”—namely, love, hospitality, mutual service, and communication. Elliott calls them “charisms”—“concrete actualizations of divine grace intended for the nurturing of the entire community” (p. 764). The concern here is not with “any form of charismatic authority but with the mutuality and reciprocity of the believers’ aid to one another.” Elliott also notes the communal responsibilities mentioned by Peter do not point to “the social structure of the community but its unity . . . These terms describe activities of every believer for the mutual edification and cohesion of the community” (p. 765).
VI. HONOR AND JOY IN SUFFERING, COMMUNAL UNITY, AND TRUST IN GOD (4:12–5:11)
VI.A. Suffering and Doing What is Right as Joyous Solidarity with Christ and Honor with God (4:12–19)
In this subsection, Peter returns once more to the issue of “innocent suffering, its inevitability for followers of Jesus Christ, its positive value, and its glorious outcome.” This text pictures a situation when “the unfounded reproaches of outsiders led to underserved suffering, which in turn caused surprise and distress that the security and salvation so fervently desired was so little in evidence” (p. 807).
Elliott summarizes Peter’s points as follows. First, “the addresses should not be surprised at their suffering (v 12) because it is nothing alien to those in communion with the suffering Christ (v 13a).” Second, “reproach, being labeled ‘Christ-lackey,’ and innocent suffering are instead to be viewed as a divine test of the probity of faith and trust in God (v 12).” Third, “inasmuch as innocent suffering effects solidarity with the suffering Christ, it is a cause for rejoicing both now and in the future, when his glory will be revealed (v 13b). Suffering should lead, not to grief or despair, but to ‘rejoicing with exultation’.” Fourth, “such suffering is an experience blessed by the presence of the divine Spirit of glory (v 14b) and, hence, a sign of being honored by God (v 14).” Fifth, “if they nevertheless are maligned and suffer as ‘Christians,’ this is not a cause for feeling shamed but an occasion for glorifying God (v 16).” Sixth, “this suffering is a sign of the divine judgment that has begun with God’s own people, ‘us,’ the household of God.” Finally, “all who suffer innocently can confidently entrust their lives to their faithful Creator and thereby persevere in doing what is right” (pp. 807–8).
Elliott denies that Peter here is encouraging “preparation for martyrdom nor forestalling a quest for the glory of martyrdom.” Peter’s statements “involve no glorification of suffering as such. Innocent suffering is seen as a means to an end—union with Christ, demonstration of faith’s probity, and glorification of God.” Nor does Peter diverts attention “from the pain of present suffering by focusing exclusively on future joy ‘in the sweet by and by’ . . . Rather, suffering is addressed with utmost earnestness but also with confident hope . . . within the framework of the encompassing story of salvation, the testing of faith, the suffering of Christ, union with the Christ in suffering and in vindication, and the reliable sustenance of the Creator . . . Salvation is not liberation from suffering but the goal attained through suffering and in the midst of suffering” (p. 808).
VI.B. Maintaining the Unity of the Community: Responsible Elders and Subordinate Younger Persons (5:1–5a)
Focusing on the internal life of the faith community, Peter now addresses two groups within that community, elders (vv 1–4) and younger persons (v 5a). Elliott claims that Peter in writing this passage “has drawn on a diversity of traditional terminology, images, and motifs and has united them in a statement on the responsibilities of elders, recent converts, and the entire community that in its totality is without parallel in the NT” (p. 811).
The elders mentioned here “were not holders of an office,” Elliott clarifies, but were “household heads whose seniority and family status earned them positions of prestige and leadership within their local communities.” Moreover, this was not only biological but also spiritual seniority, in terms of years as believers. Peter calls on the elders to exercise leadership by using the images of flock, shepherding, and exercising oversight. The flock belongs to God, not to the elders, who serve as under-shepherds of Christ as the chief shepherd. In turn, Peter calls on recent converts to be subordinate to the elders.
VI.C. The Mutual Humility of All, Resisting the Devil, and Trusting in God (5:5b–11)
The phrase “all of you” in v 5b signals that Peter is once more addressing all the believers, similar to his appeal in 3:8–12. This subsection is “a masterful blend of exhortation and encouragement,” whose goal is “the galvanizing the internal social cohesion of community, not only through a proper exercise of leadership (vv 1–4) and a respect for order (v 5a), but also through the mutual humility of all (vv 5b–6), the resistance of the encroachments of a Devil-driven society, and a collective confidence in the sustaining power of God.” Peter identifies the Devil as behind the “efforts of the hostile society intent on absorbing, neutralizing, and eliminating the Christian movement by forcing its conformity to standards and values alien to the Gospel and the will of God.” Peter pictures the Devil as “a ravenous lion seeking to devour the brotherhood.” How do the believers resist the Devil? Elliott explains: “Resistance to the Devil involves not only withstanding evil in all its forms, natural and supernatural, but also resisting pressures to conform socially to oursiders’ modes of behavior and leading lives of holy nonconformity” (p. 869).
Peter encourages the believers by reminding them that they are not alone in their innocent suffering. Christ is with them and also their brothers and sisters throughout the world who share in the same innocent suffering because of their faith.
EPISTOLARY POSTSCRIPT (5:12–14)
In this postscript, Peter does a number of things: he commends its bearer/courier, Silvanus (v 12ab); he clearly states his aim for writing this epistle (v 12c); he send “fraternal greetings from the brotherhood in Rome (v 13); he urges for a gesture of familial affection (v 14a); and he wishes for peace.
Peter urges his readers to stand fast in the grace of God. Elliott explains: “Those who have been reborn to new life are what they are by the grace of God. Until their final salvation, they must now live in and through this grace as the graced people of God. Their challenge is to stand fast in the divine grace that shapes their past, their present, and their future” (p. 88).
EVALUATION & CRITIQUE
By its massive size, the book can appear boring and un-engaging. That’s what I thought when I saw the book for the first time. But as soon as I started reading it, I was quickly fascinated by the beautiful prose, easy-to-follow logic, scholarly depth, and devotional spirit with which the author wrote the pages. There’s so much in the book for the reader’s mind and heart.
I sincerely praise Elliott for a job well-done, evident of his many years of research into the background, text, and theology of 1 Peter. Elliott’s own translations of the Greek texts and the way he structured his translations are indeed very helpful to capturing the key textual arguments. The outline of the whole commentary, as well as its break-downs into several parts, is very clear, well-thought, and reasonable. The structure consisting of Elliott’s own Greek translation, followed by an introduction, followed by detailed textual notes (where he abundantly explains Greek terms and textual concepts), followed by general (summative) comments, is indeed very clear and worth emulating by other commentaries. The appended excursuses will enhance the reader’s overall understanding of Peter’s theology and locate Elliott’s own views in relation to other existing views on crucial issues.
There is a lot of sense to what Elliott explained concerning the meaning of “resident aliens” in 1 Peter. It is true that interpreters and preachers tend to “right-away” attach metaphorical interpretations to this phrase (such as: Christians are aliens and strangers on earth; we await our permanent home in heaven; and hence, the dualistic cosmology of “this evil world is not our home,” our home is heaven, which is holy). These metaphorical interpretations are not necessary wrong; in fact, they are correct. However, we must make sure that do not by-pass the literal meaning of the text, which is that Peter’s original readers were indeed “resident-aliens” in the areas so named: Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. 1:1).
I do appreciate Elliott’s repetitious appeal to the unity of 1 Peter material over against the views that chop up the text into several parts and attribute these parts to questionable origins. In particular, I found an ally in Elliott’s view that there was strong, recognizable, consistent, and well-known Jesus tradition from which Peter drew his insights that are reflected in 1 Peter. This Jesus tradition explains the correspondences that exist between 1 Peter and other NT documents, i.e., Pauline writings. As much as I will, Elliott does away with the theory that 1 Peter was written in reliance on other NT documents.
I also concur with Elliott in his explanation of 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 which certain interpreters exploited for their own purposes, particularly to support their man-made claim that Jesus Christ in His spirit went to hell in the period after His death on the cross and before His resurrection in order to preach the gospel to the dead there unto their salvation. Elliott did a good job explaining the background of this false teaching, and his explanation of these two texts are even more superb, except that I do not concur with him in his interpretation of the “sons of God” of Genesis 6:1.
I concur wholeheartedly with Elliott’s views on the purposes of innocent Christian suffering. I think his explanations on this matter will be very edifying to the readers and indeed helpful to the preachers. However, I take exception in his view that this suffering/persecution was limited to verbal abuse. I don’t think so. Instead, I would argue that Peter’s readers suffered more than verbal abuses; they might have suffered also physically, or some of them might have. Remember how the Apostle Paul was physically attacked when he went to Asia Minor to preach the gospel there. Plus, in familial contexts whose religion is not Christianity, doesn’t conversion to Christianity invite verbal plus physical abuse? It does happen these days in Muslin or Hindu or Buddhist contexts. They could have possibly happened as well the some of the readers of 1 Peter.
I do have a big problem with Elliott’s proposal that 1 Peter was not written by Peter but instead by a Petrine group in Rome. There is a very clear textual evidence pointing to Peter’s authorship, 1:1. The mention of Silas (Silvanus) as amanuensis in 5:6 does not weaken Petrine authorship. Paul himself employed a secretary in writing Romans, but that does not rule out his own authorship of the letter. There is much at stake in authorship, contrary to Elliott’s claim that matter is that this epistle was written by a group that was loyal to Peter and upheld his theology. Of course not. The transfer of spiritual authority or, more importantly, the Spirit’s inspiration, was not automatic as Elliott envisaged. Who exactly was that Petrine group in Rome? What were their identities? Elliott was forced to conjecture that two of the members of this group were Mark and Silvanus, the latter of course being the secretary. Related to the problem of authorship is the issue of dating 1 Peter. Elliott puts it somewhere between the 70’s to the 90’s. I thought that was too late! Consistent with my argument for Petrine authorship, this epistle should have been written before Peter’s death.
Finally, Elliott’s exposition of 1 Pet. 3:1-6 could have been better if he considered the option of the complementarian view of man (husband) and woman (wife). Elliott’s exegesis seems to suggest, in effect, that Peter’s view on woman is antiquated and irrelevant to contemporary times. The complementarian view argues that man and woman are indeed equal in their worth, both being created by God in His own image. This view further argues that man and woman are not equal in terms of their God-given roles, and that in this respect, man must complement woman, and vice versa. In the context of family, and this is the rightful context of 3:1-6, the role of the husband is to lead the family. Hence, there are not two rulers but one. The role of the wife is to submit to the husband; this submitting is synonymous with “complementing” the husband. But as he did, Elliott I think accommodated too much concern from the egalitarian view to the extent that he implied that this passage is irrelevant to our contemporary times.
dvistar's blog 